Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Williams' UNscientific Bile rises up again

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method.
Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and
observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a
suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into
current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined
outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has
to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully
crafted experimentation or observation. (Link - Live science)

Here is an interesting experiment that you can duplicate at home. Put "Hatred of Science" in your google search box. You get about 33,100,000 results. And who comes up as the 2nd out of 33m?

Robyn Williams! in an item from VEXNews. From that page:

The matter-of-fact tone is deliberate and sadly typical of the ABC’s
snide condensation. Williams is an expert at it, knowing that most of
his audience shares his worldview.

Perhaps he’s been doing it so long that there’s no longer any sense of danger about this.

The public is owed an apology by Williams. It is not science
journalism to present deception political opinion as if it were
scientific objectivity. Williams was providing political opinion,
reviewing a political book by a polemicist, not a scientist.

That broadcast was intellectually fraudulent.

Robyn Williams is a pusher of the falsified AGW hypothesis (put falsified AGW hypothesis into your google....) and as the alarmist side crumbles, pushers like Robyn Williams become more shrill.

Robyn Williams latest buttburst was published by this blog under the heading:

This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.
Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as
liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and
“barefaced lying” politicians come out with…” He’s goes on to make the
most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to
people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs (link - Jo Nova)

The pages have written before of the Green Gillard Government's actions to gag opposing opinion to their socialist policy and actions, eg:

So Has Robyn Williams been let off the hook for his last Bileburst? YEP!

On Tuesday, The Australian reported that the ABC had dismissed a
complaint by its former chairman, Maurice Newman, against science
broadcaster Robyn Williams, who made a comparison between climate change
deniers and pedophiles last month. An ABC spokeswoman said the
complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was
reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified.

Harm and offence justified?

Standards

7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context,
make reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content
through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.

The ABC lets itself off the hook

ANYBODY who takes the Finkelstein report at face value would be
bemused to learn that it is absolutely fine for the ABC's science
presenter to compare climate change sceptics to pedophiles.

Former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein's report into media
regulation found that the ABC was the "most trusted" media organisation
in the country and that its "editorial quality assurance projects" and
complaints-handling processes were first class. Yet the ABC's Audience
and Consumer Affairs section says Robyn Williams has no case to answer
over his questionable comparison between sceptics, child abusers and
drug pushers on Radio National last month. The complainant was none
other than former ABC chairman Maurice Newman, who was personally
attacked by Williams in the same on-air conversation. Williams described
an opinion article Mr Newman wrote for this newspaper as "drivel".

By coincidence, the Australian Press Council has also been
adjudicating on an allegedly offensive use of the word pedophile, this
time in an opinion article in The Australian by James Delingpole. Mr
Delingpole quoted an anonymous NSW sheep farmer who said: "The wind-farm
business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f . . king our
families and knowingly doing so." In the council's view, the comparisons
with a serious and odious crime "were highly offensive".

The Editorial goes on to point out that "Williams's comments were hardly accurate or impartial, as ABC policy requires."

If the ABC doesn't have to follow it's own "Editorial Policies ( pdf link)" why have them in the first place?

These include:

Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional,commercial or personal interests.

Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought
or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Standards

1.1 Maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC.

1.2 Exercise ABC editorial control over the content the ABC broadcasts or publishes.

1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional,
commercial or personal interests.

1.4 External activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine
the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content.

1.5 Exercise editorial independence as authorised and accept responsibility for it.
When in doubt about an editorial matter, refer it up to the next most senior person
for advice or decision.

1.6 When any editorial matter, including an editorial matter not being referred up for
advice or decision, is likely to cause controversy or have an extraordinary impact,
give proper notice of it to the most appropriate senior manager.

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented
in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience.
In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought
or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The
ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary
democracy and equality of opportunity.

Popular Posts

This alarmist propaganda goes against the real data. Penn State Professor Michael Mann has made similar claims of modern temperatures being the warmest, but such “Hockey Stick” temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature.

Opinion by Anthony Cox
I wrote before about the ABC’s bias and the real
cost of the ABC to the Australian community. Since then the Abbott
government has announced reasonable budget cuts but the ABC has sunk further
into its betrayal of its Charter and of the Australian community.
In a recent poll about the farcical China/US deal about
emissions the ABC’s The Drum initially showed this result: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result? No 55% Yes 44% Unsure 1%

15205 votes counted
Given the ABC’s Left/Green readership a remarkable result.
However shortly the result
was changed to this: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change
policies as a result?Yes 76% No 23% Unsure 1% 6001
votes counted
How could you trust an organisation which lies like that and
distorts public …